Minneapolis/St. Paul police arresting civilians, journalists, lawyers

[rax]

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I am; maybe I shouldn't be angry about this, but I am. I was pointed to this thanks to fjm , but have done a bunch more research, and am assembling it with my analysis for your convenience. The sound bite is that St. Paul police, working in concert with county police and the FBI, raided a number of homes and at least one rented meeting site yesterday looking for specific individuals they believed were conspiring to riot. The first report I saw was this one, on salon.com, by Gleen Greenwald, who has written books critical of the Bush administration. There are two interesting video interviews there, as well as a pretty good (though arguably biased, I guess) summary of events. He links to this blog post by a member of I-Witness news, a group who videotapes police actions to help demonstrate when protesters are arrested on false grounds by police officers lying under oath. (More common than you'd think.) A house full of journalists was put under house arrest for a number of hours, according to the various blog sources, without a warrant.

While most mainstream media coverage is hardly exciting (the Chicago Tribune glossed like whoah, CNN elides a lot of details but does take a decently positive view of activists, the NYT doesn't seem to cover it at all: EDIT: eredien  found the coverage here), the Minneapolis Star-Tribune presents this article, including a St. Paul city councilman being pissed off and a wonderful photo of a laywer who was arrested outside one of the houses handcuffed on the steps. The Wired blog has a list of all of the searched-for-and-seized items, which does suggest to me that at least one of the groups was actually planning violent or semi-violent resistance. This makes the issue not cut and dry, and I address that in a couple of paragraphs, but I do encourage you to take a look at the list and see how many of those items you don't have in your home. (For me, the answer is either four or five, and that's not counting the downstairs apartment, though I doubt they are stockpiling urine.)

The National Lawyers Guild is one of the groups seeking action against the police, though how successful they will be is dubious, especially since the largest planned protest is tomorrow, and there are unlikely to be any courts in session before then. Even if they are successful, though,  it looks like this sort of thing may become more common: there's apparently a new FBI plan in the works to make warrants unnecessary for investigation of American citizens. Internet sources I don't trust enough to link to say they may already be doing this; normally I dismiss that sort of thing as paranoid speculation but, uh, the FBI was involved in these raids and pretty clearly did not have warrants at all the houses. So now I'm less sure.

I have mixed feelings on the wisdom and usefulness of protesting things like the RNC (or DNC: that convention was not without incident); even when protesting peacably, who is being reached? I think political speech is crucial but I often fear that such efforts are just bitching to the kennel and further entrench ill will between authority figures and protesters and, by extension, people on the political fringes like me. (Hi, I'm a queer vegan bicyclist!) However, there is a huge difference between peacable protesters and authority figures: Authority figures are invested by the state with power and authority. When they use this power to achieve control of situations, there is a fundamental imbalance of power that makes political speech problematic, and in the events I've described above, I think that [ab?]use of that power has sunk to the level of making considering political speech problematic. They made me read books about why that was a bad idea in high school; they involved rats.

I expect that at least one of these raids actually culminated in seizing material that would have been used to stop buses, blockade streets, and/or aid violent resistance of police action. I personally don't find those actions to be productive forms of political speech in an environment where other forms of political speech, including but not limited to nonviolent protest, are available. I think that police action to stop those violent protest activities is justified in a vacuum, but becomes hugely problematic when it also silences non-violent protest action by violent means. In fact, one of the biggest problems I have with violent protest is that it, too, effectively silences non-violent protest by taking the lion's share of media coverage and popular attention. In this case, the violent acts by authority figures have now shaped my understanding of the situation in terms of police action, not in terms of whatever the people in question might have been protesting, and that makes me sad and angry.

If this had happened a week ago instead of yesterday, I might be on a plane to Minneapolis right now. As it stands, that's not feasible, but Minneapolis is no longer on my list of cities in which I would be willing to live. (See also their reaction to Critical Mass in August 2007; Critical Mass has its problems, but if you watch video of the event, I expect you'll find the police behavior to be at best problematic.) I've had interactions with police in the past and while I don't feel like I was necessarily treated with the respect I deserved, I don't really have that much to complain about. No one has ever broken into my house with a submachine gun trained on me. I have absolutely no idea how I would handle that; I don't think it's an experience anyone should ever have to have. I especially think it's important not to allow those we grant authority as part of a social contract to use their power to control political discourse.

I encourage you to disseminate this information, as I've written it or otherwise; if anyone has any ideas for how to contribute productively to making this not happen in the future, I'd love to add those ideas here. Thank you for reading.

Comments

[rax.livejournal.com]

Oh, no, feel free to comment!

Part of what confuses this is that there were five raids and I don't know which is which. The house that locked the doors was I believe, empty of caltrops but full of video equipment; it's possible the place with the caltrops also locked all of the doors, I don't know. To a certain extent I don't know if we will find out for a while or at all, and that troubles me too. If it's not clear, I'm against the use of caltrops.

Here's my question: If locking the doors in response to police presence is extreme and incriminating, and giving consent is "basically a carte blanche," how are you actually supposed to respond? Is there an appropriate set of code words for "No, you may not enter my domicile, but you don't need to raid me?" That's part of what concerns me; it sounded like, from video accounts, at least one house just let them in and at least one barricaded themselves, and they basically got the same reaction.

[faerieboots.livejournal.com]

Yeah I got confused by that too; for some reason I thought the locked door house and the caltrop house were the same house (I think, because they were both mentioned in the same article and it was unclear).

I definitely think there are responses that are somewhere between, "Yes, come in and feel free to search all you want" and locking every single entrance to your domicile. If you say, "No, I will not let you in until I see evidence of a warrant," for example, but do not run to every potential entrance to the door and lock it, I would see that as a middle-of-the-road approach. Also if you let a police officer into your foyer and explicitly say, "I have not given you permission to go beyond this point," you have not given consent to search (I THINK; I would need to look into that further).

Also, again, it's a "totality of the circumstances" kind of thing for almost every aspect of a search and seizure incident; a lot depends upon how many police there are; what time of day it is; how dangerous the police think you are; what the potential charge is; etc. Doing something like locking every door in your house contributes to the scenario not necessarily because it is extreme in and of itself; it also tells the police that you are more likely to fight them when they do gain entrance, and that you have a pretty strong distrust of police. Depending on how many police there are, how many people inside the house there are, what the charge is, and whether the police are armed, that may be enough to make the average policemen genuinely fearful for his or her safety. Also, keep in mind that the police generally HATE making arrests in people's houses because it is so much less safe, both legally and physically, than arresting them in public. It's why you see so many arrests out of cars--they are generally safer on pretty much every axis.

[krinndnz.livejournal.com]

that you have a pretty strong distrust of police.

Being a cynical type with just a smattering of history, I have to say that I consider all distrust of the police justified. I'm not saying that everyone should distrust the police, but if someone does distrust the police, there is absolutely no reason to consider it unjustified. From the progressive-activist standpoint, the police have a terrible track record and I can't think less of anyone for considering them nothing but a bunch of brutal-but-legalized thugs.

[faerieboots.livejournal.com]

I think whether or not mistrust of the police is justified may be a separate issue from the totality-of-the-circumstances tally. In many places, the police act illegally on a routine basis, and this makes mistrust completely logical, but your actions still inform the legality of the police's actions at least to some extent.

it were a knee-jerk cynical snarl

[krinndnz.livejournal.com]

I think whether or not mistrust of the police is justified may be a separate issue from the totality-of-the-circumstances tally. In many places, the police act illegally on a routine basis, and this makes mistrust completely logical, but your actions still inform the legality of the police's actions at least to some extent.

I agree with you on this: trusting the police is different from whether or not their actions are letter-of-the-law legal. To clarify: I was riffing on the one slice of the comment, and not arguing with the main thrust of your point.

[autumnesquirrel.livejournal.com]

I'm starting to confuse right of entry rules as they apply to police and, in contrast, as they apply to vampires here. If you invite them in then they can eat you?